Re: WBModules

On 22 Sep 2005 Paul <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 00:34 +0100, druck wrote:
>> On 22 Sep 2005 "Paul F. Johnson" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Um, are we talking about Mono here? If you are then you're somewhat
>>> incorrect in what you are saying for two reasons. C# is not a waste of
>>> time - it's rather good offering lots of goodies.
>>
>> Its a cheap rip off Java with all the useful bits such as cross platform
>> support and security removed, but what else would you expect from
>> Microsoft.
>
> Nope. I write SWF under Mono and it works fine on Win32, Apple and Linux.
> The code compiles on all three platforms (and any others offering a C#
> compiler). I write anything under C# and the compiled binary will work on
> anything with either .NET or Mono installed.

Right up until Microsoft decide to change it and break mono, the only reason
they haven't done so far is they have completely arsed Longhorn/Vista and
haven't got time.

> Given the interface layer (SWF in this case) is common between the
> three, the language is (unlike Java) a published standard, I'm not
> really sure where you're coming from with the cross platform support not
> being there. It is.

Only via a 3rd party reverse engineered effort.

> As for the security, yeah. It does suck in places, but then so does Java
> in places.

At least Java make some effort, Microsoft doesn't even know where to start,
even if it wanted to - security can never get in the way of features
according to Bill.

> I don't really think that the criticism against MS is justified here as
> it's the language as standardised by EMCA being discussed. (and no, I'm
> not supporting MS either). C# does offer many good points.

You aint falling for that one are you? Only the basic language itself is
being submitted. All the libraries which make it any use remain proprietary
and any 3rd patry implementations are subject to patent infringement anytime
they feel like getting out the big stick.

But they probably wont for a while as its beyond beleif that people would
actually encourage adoption of .NET by porting the steaming pile volentarily.
It plays right Microsoft hands to be gifted additional developers on other
platforms without them having to loose face by even admitting there are other
platforms. Then at an opportune moment they can pully the rug out from
underneath mono, causing anyone relying on .NET application to be forced over
to Windows.

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: cross-platform programs
    ... > platforms, and have licensed the technology to IBM and others for other ... Yes, there's the Mono ... >> Is Java platform independent? ... however: Sun support JREs on multiple ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: c# or Java???
    ... The scenario that concerns me is that Mono will end up with a great ... language implementation, but their ... or the name "Java"? ... My basic view is that .Net is too tied to Microsoft for me to ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Mono und Patente
    ... > .net bekommen könnte. ... da die Implementierung von Mono keine Codezeilen von Microsoft beinhaltet, ... ist ihnen IMHO Mono auf Linux lieber als Java auf Linux. ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.entwickler.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: C++ applets.
    ... >MacOS X. Mono runs on all of these and a lot more... ... Certainly not on as many platforms as, ... e.g., Java, Perl. ... Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: WBModules
    ... I write SWF under Mono and it works fine on Win32, ... themselves fully to publishing C# as a full standard, ... However, as Java is a language without a published standard, ... > platforms without them having to loose face by even admitting there are other ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.advocacy)